Statement to ILO Standards Committee on ACTU Case

Statement by CTU president to the International Labour Organisation Committee on the Application of Standards relating to breaches by the Federal Government of Australia of Conventions 87 & 98

My name is Ross Wilson. I am President of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and, as the New Zealand Worker Delegate I strongly support the ACTU submission that the Australian Government has not only failed to take measures to ensure compliance with conventions 87 or 98 but has, subsequent to the Committee of Experts’ last consideration, passed legislation compounding and extending the serious breaches of these fundamental conventions which are the bedrock of this institution’s work.

From a New Zealand perspective it is a tragedy that the Government of this fine country, with which we co-operate on everything but sporting contests, should turn away from its proud history of tripartite co-operation, which is reflected in such achievements as its widely admired national workplace savings plan and a sustained period of strong economic growth and productivity improvement. And not only turn away from tripartism but to resort to what can only be described as anti-union legislation which seriously breaches conventions 87 & 98, both of which were ratified by the Australian Government more than 30 years ago

I describe it as a tragedy because conceptually the Australian Work Choices legislation is comparable to the Employment Contracts Act which was in force in New Zealand between 1991 and 2000, and which dramatically reduced the density of collective bargaining and agreement coverage during a period when the disparity between rich and poor rose quicker than in any other developed country. Similar impacts can be expected in Australia.

The two pieces of legislation are particularly comparable in:

• placing restrictions on strike action, including prohibition of strike action in support of multi-employer collective agreements;

• legislating an effective primacy of individual agreements (AWA’s) over collective agreements. As long ago as 1997 the Committee of Experts concluded that the Workplace Relations Act “gives primacy to individual over collective relations through the AWA procedures”. The Work Choices Act compounds that breach.

• restricting the rights of unions to represent their members in collective bargaining.

As the Freedom of Association Committee observed in respect of the NZCTU complaint on the Employment Contracts Act, Convention 98 requires that the Government ensure the encouragement and promotion of collective bargaining. It is not enough to simply permit or facilitate collective bargaining as the Employment Contracts Act, and now the Australian Work Choices legislation, purport to do. The ILO jurisprudence is clear in requiring positive measures of encouragement and promotion of collective bargaining in law and in practice.

In fact it is arguable that the Work Choices legislation goes even further than the Employment Contracts Act in restricting, undermining, and frustrating collective bargaining by legitimate workers organisations.

There can be no argument that the Work Choice legislation substantially shiftsthe balance of favour even further in the employer’s favour. That inevitably leads to the sort of workplace environment which is reflected in the following letter from a New Zealand supermarket supervisor to the Department of Labour during the 1990s:

“As soon as the Employment Contracts Act came in everything changed in this place we were told – now he’d do it his way. First he got rid of the union, and some were threatened that if they belonged to the union they would be down the road. The contracts were never negotiated. We were called in one by one and given this printed document with a place to put your signature. Some of the young ones were not allowed to take their contracts home for their parents to read. The first year all of us who already worked there got penal rates. As people left or were sacked, the new ones went on to a flat rate with no set amount – they were all getting different wages. Within a year there was a 90% rollover of staff.”

 Collective bargaining was almost halved in New Zealand in the 1990s, enterprise documents and individual employment contracts became almost universal, and union density fell from 56% per cent of the labour force to 21 per cent by 1999.
 
 Major contributors to that were the prohibition on strike action in support of multi-employer collective agreements which had the effect of collapsing many national agreements which may otherwise have survived, the primacy in law and practice of individual bargaining and employment contracts, and the restrictions and impediments imposed on unions seeking to engage in collective bargaining.
 
 The result was not only a negative impact on wages and allowances. The climate of fear and insecurity created by the increased employer power in bargaining, the attack on unions, and the weakening and removal of legal protection against unfair dismissal also had a consequent negative impact on workplace culture and occupational safety and health. The 1990s in New Zealand saw:
• The widespread weakening of employee participation in occupational safety and health.
• A lessening of employee knowledge and awareness of health and safety issues.
• A weakening of union representation and bargaining on health and safety issues.
• An increasing unwillingness of workers to report workplace health and safety problems.
And a serious decline in workplace health and safety standards in many workplaces.

It is inevitable that similar legislation in Australia will have similar adverse effects on Australian workers and their families unless, at the very least, the Australian Federal Government is persuaded to uphold minimum ILO labour standards in law and in practice.

Trade unions are a vital institution of civil society, and this attack on Australian unions is an attack on Australian democracy and the organisations which provide voice for working people, not only in the workplace but in society at large.

It seems incredible that, at a time when the successful country models, and ILO standards and programmes, emphasise the importance of building social partnerships, co-operating on skill development, work organisation, and  innovation as the key to improved productivity and comparative advantage in high skill, high value products and services, the Australian Government seems to be embarking on failed strategies from a bygone era.

But the key questions for this Committee are whether the Australian Government has complied with the request of the Committee of Experts, and complies with the requirements of Convetions 87 & 98 which it has ratified. I support the ACTU submission that the answer to both is NO.

- July 2006